Ballast Ballast box or Filled tires?

[KiotiJohn]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Show me PROOF of that statement. )</font>
You need proof that a heavier tractor uses more fuel? Show me where any of those studies says otherwise.
My statement is that with loaded tires, your always heavier, and always using more fuel.
With add on weight, you're still heavier, but you don't have to leave it on all the time, therefore using less fuel when the weight is off.
I don't think that needs any proof, do you?
John

 

[Indydirtfarmer]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( </font><font color="blueclass=small">( Show me PROOF of that statement. )</font>
You need proof that a heavier tractor uses more fuel? Show me where any of those studies says otherwise.
My statement is that with loaded tires, your always heavier, and always using more fuel.
With add on weight, you're still heavier, but you don't have to leave it on all the time, therefore using less fuel when the weight is off.
I don't think that needs any proof, do you?
John )</font>

Seeing as to how I have years of proof OTHERWISE,.....

You aren't carrying a load with fluid in the tires. The fluid is FLUID. It takes NO EFFORT to move it. wieght in the form of cast iron hung from the tractor is the complete opposite.

WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE FLUID FILLED TIRES BECAME SO POPULAR??????

With all the major tire manufacturers, the major equipment manufacturers, and two of the top AG Universities saying that fluid doesn't require extra HP.... I'm inclined to agree with them AND WHAT SEVERAL GENERATIONS OF FARMERS IN MY FAMILY HAVE FOUND BY ACTUAL IN_THE_FIELD USE, as opposed to a theory.

 

[KenVT]

EVERYBODY BACK TO YOUR CORNERS!!!!


/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif


Ken

 

[KiotiJohn]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Seeing as to how I have years of proof OTHERWISE,.....

You aren't carrying a load with fluid in the tires. The fluid is FLUID. It takes NO EFFORT to move it. wieght in the form of cast iron hung from the tractor is the complete opposite. )</font>
I find that very interesting and I'm very open to having my mind changed. I based my opinion on asking every farmer that I have known about loaded tires. Not one ever said that to me. Where can I find the studies?
Thanks, John

 

[bdog]

I am all for fluid in tires, and true it is "fluid" and you don't have to rotate it so yes it uses less energy than say bolt on wheel weights, but keep in mind you are still moving the fluid wherever your tractor goes. This requires energy.

 

[PineRidge]

We do use our Class III for mowing so we elected to go with the cast iron weight.

I can tell you that with the cast on the back we can easily max out the 17LA loader and still not pick the back of the tractor up so it's pretty stable. 17 LA loaders are rated at about a ton if my memory serves me correctly.

The biggest advantage in my opinion of cast iron is that it can easily be shed so that the tractor can get on the turf sooner in early spring without tearing it up. It's also desirable to lose the weight when working in the garden with the tiller to prevent soil compaction.

Guess if I wasn't concerned with carrying the weight around all the time then I might consider filled tires but the cast is so much easier to handle than most any filled tire that weighs too much for two men to handle.

 

[MMM]

John, I'm pretty sure Indy is right. The fluid weight in tires is mostly riding on the ground, instead of being carried by the tractor like a counterweight. There is some slight inertia related rolling resistance and fluid friction. Kinda like packing a rear tire on your back, or rolling it where it needs to go. I know which would have me panting.

 

[Boomerang1]

Fill all 4 tires on your pickup truck, drive 60 mph and I bet your fuel mileage drops considerably. Weight is weight is weight period. Also I think the fluid would rotate somewhat with the tractor tire.

 

[Indydirtfarmer]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Fill all 4 tires on your pickup truck, drive 60 mph and I bet your fuel mileage drops considerably. Weight is weight is weight period. Also I think the fluid would rotate somewhat with the tractor tire. )</font>

One, your tractor doesn't run 60 MPH.... Apple to oranges.....

This theory has been harranged on every website the internet has to offer. Bottom line....Tire manufacturers, tractor manufacturers, and major AG universities have tested different methods of ballasting tractors, and ALL have found there is NO MEASURABLE LOSS of fuel economy, nor was there any drop in available HP when ballasted with fluid in the tires.

About 4 years ago, I switched all of my field tractors to radial tires. We ran WITHOUT fluid for one season. The idea was sold to me that radials got so much more traction, that they didn't need the added ballast that bias ply tires did. It ended up being a myth. I was forced to add fluid before the next season's use. We have farmed the same ground for 189 years (not ME, but my family....) These tractors run over the same ground, doing the same thiongs, every year. We did see a SLIGHT increase in fuel economy when we switched to radials..... That was expected. We saw NO DECREASE in fuel consumption when we added the fluid to those same radials, spread over the course of an entire years useage.

There's a reason why I have some of this info..... I used to believe it would take extra power to turn fluid filled tires.... I had it prooven to me by someone who I'd rather have not have been forced to admit I was wrong.......(My favorite brother-in-law.....) He gathered all the info, and posted it on another website 3 years back.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Now I am not one to cause trouble or point out inconsistent arguements so I have been sitting back and watching, but . . .

KiotiJohn wrote <font color="purple"> A tractor with loaded tires requires more HP to operate, therefore using more fuel. . . Adding an implement or ballast box to the rear makes more sense to me as many of my jobs just don't require the extra weight of loaded tires. . .Yes, the loaded tires have some advantage in how the weight affects the axles, etc. compared to ballast, but the ballast (either box or implement) can be removed. . . I went with the heaviest overall tractor I could buy in its class so that I could take advantage of the HP without having to add weight. </font>

Indydirtfarmer wrote: <font color="green"> Show me PROOF of that statement..... Firestone, B.F. Goodrich, GoodYear, John Deere, Case/NH, AGCO, Univ, of Nebraska, and Purdue Univ. claim otherwise. (With test data to back it up) Weight is weight.... It doesn't matter if it's in the tires, hanging on a front weight bracket, or in a box on the 3-point hitch... </font>

MMM wrote: <font color="brown"> The fluid weight in tires is mostly riding on the ground, instead of being carried by the tractor like a counterweight. There is some slight inertia related rolling resistance and fluid friction. Kinda like packing a rear tire on your back, or rolling it where it needs to go. </font>

Boomerang1 wrote: <font color="blue"> Fill all 4 tires on your pickup truck, drive 60 mph and I bet your fuel mileage drops considerably. </font>



Now granted, I did edit out some of the fluff some of the above folks have written but here is what I see.

First, KiotiJohn makes a compelling arguement for buying a light tractor and adding ballast but then bought a heavy one. Second, Indy provides no real proof to refute John or to back up his statements. MMM is probably on the money with his observation. And Boomerang1 does in fact miss the concept this time but it is understandable why he'd make that point.

Here is what I see. It doesn't matter if we use a bit more fuel one way or the other! Given ALL of the myriad variables in operating a tractor in REAL WORLD conditions, there is no way to prove Indy is correct or John is correct. What we all darn well know is that we are changing our throttle settings on a regular basis, second, for most of us we use these tractors less than 150 hours a year, many only 75 hours a year. Now if you get a couple HOURS of operating per GALLON of diesel to begin with, we are talking about using MAYBE 75 gallons of fuel a year for a non-farmer who uses his tractor a lot of hours!!! The difference in fuel economy between the two arguements is probably going to consume LESS THAN 1 GALLON PER YEAR. In my market that is about $2.

Want to fight over $2.00? For a more typical user, we are probably talking about $0.75 cents a year difference. So does it really make a hill of beans if one way uses more or less fuel? And realistically HOW COULD YOU OBJECTIVELY MEASURE IT IN REAL WORLD USE given all the variables we encounter.

Now for a real farmer, I'd say it is worth measuring and studying. For the rest of us it is a pile of hooey.

For pmoon, who asked the question in the first place, your answer was answered by folks not mentioned in this response. In case you missed it: It really depends on what you want to lift with your loader. The more you want to lift, the more ballast you need. So pick, either or both.


Just my $0.02